FireChan Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 There seems to be evidence that supports a use of force by the officer, but at what point is it excessive? Shoot him in the legs. Have you ever fired a gun? Better yet, have you fired a gun at moving target within a spread of 3 inches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) You may be 100% correct but back to my original point which is that I think the officer will ultimately be convicted of something. Highly likely he'll be charged if for no other reason than public pressure and I can see a plea or some conviction from there. The whole thing sucks for all involved. Ladies and gentlemen, your jury pool. Ignorance is bliss, eh? BTW - Sheriff Grady Judd of Polk County Sheriffs Office in Florida was asked why his deputies shot 110 rounds at a suspect that had just killed a deputy and a police dog in 2006. His response: "I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had," Judd said. "We were not going to take any chance of him shooting back." http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/10/01/florida-police-shot-suspected-cop-killer-68-times/ Sometimes it takes 1, sometimes it takes 110. You shoot to stop the threat. Don't like it, I suggest that you don't attack armed citizens or cops. Edited August 19, 2014 by Sig1Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 You may be 100% correct but back to my original point which is that I think the officer will ultimately be convicted of something. Highly likely he'll be charged if for no other reason than public pressure and I can see a plea or some conviction from there. The whole thing sucks for all involved. This didn't happen with Zimmerman and I doubt it will happen here. Ladies and gentlemen, your jury pool. Ignorance is bliss, eh? Seriously. "You didn't have to kill that guy breaking into your home, you could've like, shot him in the legs or taken him down with Judo. Guilty" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 You may be 100% correct He is 100% correct. Aiming for the arms or legs, while cool in the movies, is aiming to intentionally wound someone Police are trained to aim center mass. Police are trained to stop their targets. Not kill them. Not wound them. Stop them Best way to stop an aggressor is to aim for the largest hit box Looking at the autopsy pictures, it looks like the cop was aiming center mass at a moving target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 'Michael Brown rushed officer'... REPORTER: More than dozen witnesses confirm Ferguson cop's version of shooting... Militant protesters growing in number, many coming from out-of-state... KURTZ: Some Liberal Outlets Creating 'Almost Lynch Mob Mentality'... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Ladies and gentlemen, your jury pool. Ignorance is bliss, eh? I've simply stated stated what I believe will be the outcome of this situation. I never said what my position is and won't until I see more facts, but I think the officer will have a very hard time explaining why he shot this person 6 times and twice to the head. This didn't happen with Zimmerman and I doubt it will happen here. I think the chances of the officer not being charged are slim to none. I don't see Mr. Holder letting this slide and I think the local authorities will be under intense pressure to bring charges and let the court, lawyers and jurors sort it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 I've simply stated stated what I believe will be the outcome of this situation. I never said what my position is and won't until I see more facts, but I think the officer will have a very hard time explaining why he shot this person 6 times and twice to the head. I think the chances of the officer not being charged are slim to none. I don't see Mr. Holder letting this slide and I think the local authorities will be under intense pressure to bring charges and let the court, lawyers and jurors sort it out. Why? To satisfy the mob of looters? There are a growing number of reports that support the officer's actions in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Let what slide ? The kid was a thug who threatened some old man over a pack of blunts, while he stole them. Probably pulled the same type shhhh w the officer and learned the hard way to not be such a dumb thug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Why? To satisfy the mob of looters? There are a growing number of reports that support the officer's actions in this case. The officer hasn't given his story publically yet as far as I know and the decision to charge or not will be based on evidence presented to a grand jury. If 9 of 12 of those people feel there is evidence to support a charge, he gets charged. The looters mean nothing. I'm simply stating what I think will happen. I believe he'll be charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 I've simply stated stated what I believe will be the outcome of this situation. I never said what my position is and won't until I see more facts, but I think the officer will have a very hard time explaining why he shot this person 6 times and twice to the head. I think the chances of the officer not being charged are slim to none. I don't see Mr. Holder letting this slide and I think the local authorities will be under intense pressure to bring charges and let the court, lawyers and jurors sort it out. what a waste of civil rights, freedom, democracy, and so much more. The Fed has no right to say a thing in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 I've simply stated stated what I believe will be the outcome of this situation. I never said what my position is and won't until I see more facts, but I think the officer will have a very hard time explaining why he shot this person 6 times and twice to the head. Standard practice. You shoot until the target goes down. It's not like in the movies, where the hero takes one shot, and the bad guy falls down. It's more like in the movies, where the hero takes a shot and doesn't feel it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 The officer hasn't given his story publically yet as far as I know and the decision to charge or not will be based on evidence presented to a grand jury. If 9 of 12 of those people feel there is evidence to support a charge, he gets charged. The looters mean nothing. I'm simply stating what I think will happen. I believe he'll be charged. Are we back on the "he shot him too many times" thing again? I thought that I successfully debunked that belief of yours through rational thought and fact. If you have some other knowledge about the investigation that has not been shared, don't hold out on us. I'm interested to hear the facts that you are aware of that point to a grand jury indictment. In the more likely event that you are just talking out of your backside and making assumptions based on ignorance....well, please - dont let any of us get in your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Are we back on the "he shot him too many times" thing again? I thought that I successfully debunked that belief of yours through rational thought and fact. If you have some other knowledge about the investigation that has not been shared, don't hold out on us. I'm interested to hear the facts that you are aware of that point to a grand jury indictment. In the more likely event that you are just talking out of your backside and making assumptions based on ignorance....well, please - dont let any of us get in your way. You haven't debunked anything. I'm simply stating what I believe will happen. If you feel that this will never result in charges being filed against the officer, fine. I see it going the other way and not because I disagree with you, but because of how I think the legal process will play out on this one and who is involved. I could very well be wrong. We'll see where it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 I could very well be wrong. We'll see where it goes. For everyone's sake, I hope that you are. It is truly a shame that you believe a man should be criminally charged based upon "public pressure" without any evidence of a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 For everyone's sake, I hope that you are. It is truly a shame that you believe a man should be criminally charged based upon "public pressure" without any evidence of a crime. Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I have never said that I think he should be criminally charged or that I want him charged. I've stated several times that I believe he will be charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I have never said that I think he should be criminally charged or that I want him charged. I've stated several times that I believe he will be charged. I provided you with facts explaining why someone will not be charged with excessive use of force for shooting too many times. You chose to wallow in your ignorance. What do I know? I've only been a cop for 15 years. Then, you say he will be charged because Holder "won't let it slide" and due to "public pressure". A poster called you out on this idiocy, and you denied it. You repeat your stupid, ignorant belief and refuse to provide any evidence to support it (hence, its ignorance). Now, if you didn't believe he should be charged wouldn't you listen to the voices of reason? You ignore them. Therefore, it is obvious that you believe he should be charged. My reading comprehension is fine. Edited August 19, 2014 by Sig1Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Eventually Hillary will comment on #Ferguson, but it will cost $250k, and a private jet, ............ “Why Obama won’t give the Ferguson speech his supporters want.” UPDATE: From the comments: Obama campaigned as a “Uniter”. The moment he was elected, he governed as a “Divider” He won reelection by carefully dividing. At this point, all the unicorn dust has blown away. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Standard practice. You shoot until the target goes down. Amazed hit hit anything at all, not sure if I could with this kind of injury. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Speaking of Al Sharpton, is there anything more bizarre than him calling out the governor of New Jersey for dancing while there's problems in Missouri. The same weekend that Obama is seen dancing in Martha's Vineyard: Al Sharpton Slams Chris Christie For Partying While Ferguson Violence Worsened http://www.huffingto...nk4&pLid=516872 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Speaking of Al Sharpton, is there anything more bizarre than him calling out the governor of New Jersey for dancing while there's problems in Missouri. The same weekend that Obama is seen dancing in Martha's Vineyard: Al Sharpton Slams Chris Christie For Partying While Ferguson Violence Worsened http://www.huffingto...nk4&pLid=516872 Sharpton is a nut case. However the fact that HuffPo left that tidbit out regarding Obama dancing is bad journalism at its worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts